If you've been searching for that ever-elusive collection of adornments for body and home which weds fashion and firepower, you may finally be in luck, you twisted pup. For gun-manufacturer Smith & Wesson is set to unveil "Crossings," a new catalog of "rustic yet romantic" clothing, jewelry and home decor.
But what on the surface may appear to be a misguided corporate case of "Queer Eye" Fever is really something altogether different: Smith & Wesson has been forced to cut back on production of their signature commodities due to lawsuits alleging liability for gun violence, and is therefore in need of new customers.
However, when considering the arena in which they chose to expand their offerings, I was struck with a delectably ironic parallel. Namely, that the same logic which has been used to sue gun-makers for wrongs committed with their products by errant consumers can apply to the frivolous lawsuit I've fantasized about leveling for years against the nation's garment-producers for the aesthetic pollution their products smite the social environment with when they fall into the wrong hands.
A key line of reasoning in justifiably holding firearm-producers liable is that, by marketing and disseminating a dangerous product, the risk of abuse is great enough to be foreseeable and thereby in some measure preventable. With levels of obesity and good taste being what they are, the same argument can apply to the clothing industry: Just as for every pistol-purveyor who can responsibly handle their arsenal there is a shady character who cannot, for every fashion-buyer capable of pulling off a mini skirt or keeping offensive articles out of public sight there is (at least) one that cannot.
Smith & Wesson apparently does not share my sentiments, instead favoring the idea that less guns, less consumer accountability and more ill-becoming Western wear is a novel solution to their quandary. Is this truly what we want to come of the maelstrom of offensive litigation engulfing America? Not the popular upholding of truth and justice, but the proliferation of tacky textiles and pardoning of personal responsibility?
Apparently, for this trend seems to have the tenacity of the pope, and can only be expected to continue. There is one particular lawsuit that I'm convinced is on the horizon, a lawsuit to which all that have come before will pale: Some ambitious young legal scholar with an unending store of zeal and/or chemical stimulants is going to figure out a way to sue their parents for spawning them from a tainted gene pool.
This is truly is the ultimate reprieve from individual responsibility: Through some combination of genetics and rearing environment, parents can be–and for all practical purposes are–blamed for absolutely everything conceivably skewed within their progeny. It is merely a matter of time before this is transposed onto the legal system.
For with the proven existence of everything from "fat genes" to "near-sighted genes" to "predisposition-to-a-profusion-of-mental-maladies genes," all lesser litigation will be rendered unnecessary and the quest for utter relinquishment of personal autonomy may cease, thus leaving fashion safely in the hands of trained professionals.
Holly Noe's column runs each Friday. If you can explain the allure of light gray sweat pants, please enlighten her at [email protected], then contact "What Not to Wear."